3 ms·

The canonical example of the limits of free speech: You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Similarly, you can't run toward someone screaming, pull back l

The canonical example of the limits of free speech: You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Similarly, you can't run toward someone screaming, pull back like you're going to throw a punch, then claim innocence when charged with assault. There are numerous court cases that draw various lines. Courts have recognized people sometimes say "I'll kill you" but without any actual intent. They also recognize sometimes threats are veiled and spoken in coded language to give the superficial appearance of acceptability... but the threats are just as real as pulling back in a punching motion. Much sexual harassment falls into the latter category. Rarely to abusers (male or female) come right out and say "sleep with me or you're fired / I'll tank your funding round / I'll call your loan", though that does happen. By far the most common case is subtle suggestions or inferences that things will be easier for you if you go along with it. In general it is best to avoid anything that appears romantic whenever there is a power imbalance. As a VC, you shouldn't be hitting on founders. If you think there is mutual attraction there then send that person to a friend at a different VC or wait for the funding rounds to close and assign the company to a different partner. Even then it is risky - the target of your affection may feel like they need to play along or you'll start bad-mouthing them and it will crush their business. When the target of your affection says "Sorry, I have a partner / boyfriend / girlfriend" it is a very clear signal they are not interested. Even better advice is: don't. There is a wide pool of potential partners. Why are you so desperate to find a pickup among your founders / subordinates? Hint: usually because you're taking advantage of them! In this case the most likely explanation is the guy wanted to have some affairs and thought hooking up with founders would be an easy score. What those women thought or felt was entirely beneath his notice.

0xcde4c3db 9y ago
> The canonical example of the limits of free speech: You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. That's the iconic example, but from what I've heard (IANAL) lawyers and judges mostly don't consider it an especially compelling rhetorical argument, let alone representative of an actual legal standard.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
[Responding to your comment in isolation.] As you're talking about legal things I feel a degree more pedantry is needed. You can yell "fire!" but not without an expectation of subsequent deleterious consequences. You have the freedom to speak, you don't have the freedom from consequences of that speech. >When the target of your affection says "Sorry, I have a partner / boyfriend / girlfriend" it is a very clear signal they are not interested. // I'd say that is "somewhat clear"; it's still relying on implicit communication. Far better IMO would be "I'm not interested in a romantic/intimate/sexual relationship with you.". Just saying you have a partner is not as clear; maybe your'e the sort that hops around, or has an open relationship or is turned on by infidelity; if a person thinks you're flirting with them but they mention a current sexual partner you might imagine that you're just being warned to keep things clandestine or being told to compete. >most likely explanation // I imagine the most likely explanation was that he was attracted to them, they mirrored his attraction and it went on from there without any thought from him that they were doing it in order to win/not_lose business positioning.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  > I'd say that is "somewhat clear"; it's still relying on implicit communication. Far better IMO would be "I'm not interested in a romantic/intimate/sexual relationship with you.". Just saying you have a partner is not as clear; maybe your'e the sort that hops around, or has an open relationship or is turned on by infidelity; if a person thinks you're flirting with them but they mention a current sexual partner you might imagine that you're just being warned to keep things clandestine or being told to compete. If you hit on someone, and they respond "I have a boyfriend" full stop, then unless they're taking their clothes off as they say it, there is zero chance that they mean anything but "I am not interested in your advances." And, frankly, there's no reason to tell yourself otherwise unless you're planning on sexually harassing that person.

0xcde4c3db 9y ago

> The canonical example of the limits of free speech: You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. That's the iconic example, but from what I've heard (IANAL) lawyers and judges mostly don't consider it an especially compelling rhetorical argument, let alone representative of an actual legal standard.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

[Responding to your comment in isolation.] As you're talking about legal things I feel a degree more pedantry is needed. You can yell "fire!" but not without an expectation of subsequent deleterious consequences. You have the freedom to speak, you don't have the freedom from consequences of that speech. >When the target of your affection says "Sorry, I have a partner / boyfriend / girlfriend" it is a very clear signal they are not interested. // I'd say that is "somewhat clear"; it's still relying on implicit communication. Far better IMO would be "I'm not interested in a romantic/intimate/sexual relationship with you.". Just saying you have a partner is not as clear; maybe your'e the sort that hops around, or has an open relationship or is turned on by infidelity; if a person thinks you're flirting with them but they mention a current sexual partner you might imagine that you're just being warned to keep things clandestine or being told to compete. >most likely explanation // I imagine the most likely explanation was that he was attracted to them, they mirrored his attraction and it went on from there without any thought from him that they were doing it in order to win/not_lose business positioning.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago
> I'd say that is "somewhat clear"; it's still relying on implicit communication. Far better IMO would be "I'm not interested in a romantic/intimate/sexual relationship with you.". Just saying you have a partner is not as clear; maybe your'e the sort that hops around, or has an open relationship or is turned on by infidelity; if a person thinks you're flirting with them but they mention a current sexual partner you might imagine that you're just being warned to keep things clandestine or being told to compete. If you hit on someone, and they respond "I have a boyfriend" full stop, then unless they're taking their clothes off as they say it, there is zero chance that they mean anything but "I am not interested in your advances." And, frankly, there's no reason to tell yourself otherwise unless you're planning on sexually harassing that person.